Which Antivirus for Windows 7?

Discussion in 'Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac' started by doxavita, Jul 3, 2011.

  1. doxavita macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2010
    #1
    Which Antivirus do you recommend for Windows 7?

    I think I have three main options, but if you think there's something better, please go ahead.


    a. There's the Kaspersky Internet Security that comes with Parallels 6, I think they offer a complete 1 year membership (included), after the 1 year period, paying will be needed. If I decide to uninstall it after the year, I assume this should be easy to do.

    b. Then there's AVG, which is probably the best free antivirus.

    c. And I've been told recently that Microsoft Security Essentials is also another contender.

    Which antivirus do you guys use and why?
     
  2. MacDawg macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #2
    I would use Microsoft Security Essentials and stay away from Kaspersky, et. al.
    My 2¢

    If not, I would choose Avira, Avast or AVG free versions and use common sense and practice safe computing regardless
     
  3. doxavita thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2010
    #3
    Why do you recommend staying away from Kaspersky?

    Both Microsoft Security Essentials and AVG are free, right?

    Never tried Security Essentials before, is it good in general? (detection, light on the system, etc...)
     
  4. shyam09 macrumors 68000

    shyam09

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    #4
    avast ftw

    i just love using avast. i have used avast on my PC for about 3-5 years and it's simply amazing! given that i don't really do "bad" things hehe i havent caught anything yet, but still i just like avast a lot more. the UI is quite intuitive and beautiful. everything is quick user friendly.

    in fact i have it on my windows bootcamp already. it's really light weight and barely uses processes.
    i believe it's about 22k [from parallels]
     
  5. doxavita thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2010
  6. MacDawg macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #6
    Kaspersky has caused me nothing but headache and trouble at work
    And it constantly intrudes on me and uses resources

    I have had no issues with MSE
     
  7. stomer macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    Location:
    Leeds, UK
    #7
    One thing about MSE that I hate, it likes to tell me that its virus definitions are out-of-date but it won't update them by itself, I have to click no the update button.
    That irritates the hell out of me. Perhaps there's a setting that I'm missing...
     
  8. Mr MM macrumors 65816

    Mr MM

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    #8
    kaspersky is really one of the best out there.

    I do use only security essentials:

    1) its free
    2) lightweight
    3) high detection system
    4) updated regurlarly

    However malware detection is one thing, blocking malware is another, and all anti virus fail at the latter. Since the idea of virus is to infect more and more pcs with NEW virus, the new virus have a delay to get the update done.

    What you gotta do is to have what was considered and is still now considered bad practices and behaviour risks, much like AIDS

    Dont download software from any place, BUY the said software

    Dont use p2p unless for LEGIT purposes, like linux programs and sharing files over a closed p2p network

    Dont visit prom sites, real life is for that

    UPDATE REGULARLY, all your programs!

    If you do that the chances are that you are never bothered with malware, much like me, the last one I got I was using xp
     
  9. doxavita thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2010
    #9
    Well, I now have Microsoft Security Essentials installed. Lets see how it turns out, I haven't messed with any of the default settings...
     
  10. munkery macrumors 68020

    munkery

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2006
    #10
    It is hard to beat any software solution that is made by the same vendor as the OS.

    MSE's detection rates is on par with paid solutions and it is above average for detection of rootkits, which are the most problematic type of malware.

    It is better than other free solutions because it doesn't require registration to install. Also, many free solutions periodically require that registration to be renewed.

    It should automatically update twice a day by default. A setting must have been modified.

    Unless you mean the warnings about doing quick scans?
     
  11. shyam09 macrumors 68000

    shyam09

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    #11
    depending on your partition size and uses, i would also suggest you download malwarebyte anti-malware

    its free, you will miss some stuff from pro version, but if you wish to buy it, it's up to you [i personally wouldn't buy it, but it depends on your uses and if you are gonna go all illegal and "dangerous":p]
     
  12. munkery macrumors 68020

    munkery

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2006
    #12
  13. Emily91 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    #13
    Other then common sense I tend to use Microsoft Security Essentials, It is nice and light and even better free.
     
  14. windowstomac macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2011
    #14
    AVG Free is fine, but it is becoming increasingly bloatware-ish with every subsequent revision. I'm quite a fan of eSet, works well and nice and lightweight...costs money though.
     
  15. Hyper-X macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    #15
    MSE is a good free option, so is AVG's free offering however to say that it's hard to beat the software vendor of the OS with an AV product is stretching the truth beyond reason.

    As far as raw detection based upon a huge database of known threats which include viruses, worms, etc., Kaspersky is actually on or at the very top, MSE nor any other free offering is close in terms of overall possible detection capability. Not a big deal on a consumer level machine but across a managed network, it can be big. Protection strategy is situation-based, not a "1 solution fits all".

    However here's where it gets a little more complex, a lot of the viruses don't affect NT 5.x or NT 6.x kernels (Win2k-XP, Vista-Win7) however it's there to help deal with residuals that may still lay dormant on some site or email. Many web servers and proxies have the ability to detect and quarantine/clean viruses at their level, then you have some browsers which have the effect of sandboxing, then you have local protection on your computer. There's a lot of talk about how Windows get viruses but I haven't seen one since Win98SE so it's hard to say which product is working better since all scans turn up negative.

    Users IMHO are the biggest threats beyond any virus or malware product because they make bad choices. For Windows they mess around with the UAC to completely disable it allowing things to happen without their knowing for example. On Win7 it's actually quite perfect, it's almost like how it works with OSX, not very intrusive at all. Even OSX can contract threats onto itself if the user either carelessly, foolishly or unknowingly does something to make it happen.

    What every user should be using is a quality anti-Malware product, even OSX has anti-malware implemented, hidden inside silently by Apple. However for Windows, a quick app is Malwarebytes, another good one is Superantispyware, both are free.
     
  16. munkery, Jul 6, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2011

    munkery macrumors 68020

    munkery

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2006
    #16
    In terms of overall user experience, I think it is hard to beat MSE. It is free and does not require registration. It's menus are easy to navigate and it typically has better detection rates than other free alternatives. It updates definitions independently and via Windows Update.

    BTW, below is a link to a recent variant of TDL-4, which is able to bypass UAC in Windows 7. Also, it installs itself into the master boot record to avoid detection by AV software.

    http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/tdl4-rootkit-now-using-stuxnet-bug-120710

    https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/tdl4-rootkit-bypasses-windows-code-signing-protection-111610

    It is not really hidden, given that it provides the user an obvious prompt when malware is detected. But, this is a good example of a pragmatic malware solution being provided by the OS software vendor.
     
  17. Hyper-X macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    #17
    While it is free, there are other products that are out there that work as well if not better, is lighter-weight and doesn't require registration either. I've been advocating MSE for a very long time due to its simplicity but it's not exactly the best free solution out there.

    The biggest problem with MSE is lack of configuration options and update frequency. While this isn't an issue with just MSE (other AV's have this problem as well), MSE isn't exactly fast in terms of scanning times. It's strongest point is its simplicity and it's also the weak point at the same time.


    Malware, not exactly a virus by true definition however a serious threat nonetheless.

    TDL4 was patched using KB2506014.


    Hidden in such that it doesn't exactly qualify as an Application, rather a hidden feature that users have no control over. Some call it XProtect but that's not an official name for the protection itself, rather the name of the detection data file.
     
  18. munkery, Jul 7, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2011

    munkery macrumors 68020

    munkery

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2006
    #18
    What do you think is the best free solution?

    Fast scanning times are an artificial measure of quality. It is better to be slower but detect more rootkits, which are the most problematic type of malware.

    This patch only prevents TDL-4 installing into the master boot record in 64 bit versions of Windows. It can still infect these systems but it no longer installs into the MBR. Also, the patch does nothing for those already infected. TDL-4 can still install into the MBR in 32 bit versions.
     
  19. Hyper-X macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    #19
    It really depends on the combination of what machine it's going to be installed on and what the user feels is an important feature. I know my response sounds cryptic but it's an honest reply.

    Those who want things to run silently will likely find MSE a good choice, very simple to operate, doesn't nag the user with much. It's also a good choice for Netbook-class computers as it's decently lightweight. Negatives is it doesn't upgrade to the latest version when it's out, users find that downloading the current MSE from MS's website then upgrading it works better.

    Some prefer more interaction with the software, for this AVG free is good. I never really liked AVG in the past because it was quite sloppy on performance, not lightweight and wasn't really good on detection. Now it's very lightweight, very good on performance/speed and you can have a desktop gadget installed for easy updating and scanning.


    We must agree to disagree on this. Slow scanning does not necessarily equate to better scanning, it could point out inefficiencies. No 1 product is going to be best at everything, at least I haven't heard nor seen such a product since everyone was on DOS. A lot of scanners artificially boast higher detection with virus signatures within their respective databases that doesn't can't affect modern PC's.


    The patch effectively eliminates the threat of damage to the system if not already infected, even if it is installed onto the system, it is inert. There are at least 3 free scanners that will scan for and eliminate it, 2 from BitDefender, 1 from Kaspersky.

    This can be a problem for those on MBR disks on Windows however there are a lot of them on GPT disks and TDL-4 is of no consequence on those systems, same as on x86 systems, it can reside on those systems without much risk, if any.
     
  20. madhukarah macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Location:
    India, Kerala
    #20
    Give a try for Panda Cloud Antivirus. It's free, cloud based, doesn't hurt system resources.
     
  21. munkery macrumors 68020

    munkery

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2006
    #21
    Thanks?

    It is not true in every case but it is true in the case of MSE. It is slower scanning but has better rootkit detection than other free alternatives.

    This patch is not a complete solution.

    "Although the patch helps with this particular case it doesn’t solve the problem in general. There are other ways of penetrating into kernel-mode address space on x64 operating systems, for instance, as in the case of the Chinese bootkit which is detected as NSIS/TrojanClicker.Agent.BJ,"

    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Patch-Disables-TDL4-Rootkit-on-64-Bit-Windows-195418.shtml

    Also, some of your data about GPT seems to be incorrect.

    https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table#Windows_32-bit_versions
     

Share This Page